> Infantry marching unprotected would be slaughtered by even semi-accurate small arms fire, especially from prepared positions. I'm no military expert. But my

> Infantry marching unprotected would be slaughtered by even semi-accurate small arms fire, especially from prepared positions. I'm no military expert. But my understanding of military tactics is that an IFV (ie: M2 Bradley) is expected to have its squad of ~6-soldiers dismount ahead of time. The 6-soldiers maneuver / flank as needed, while the IFV's 30mm cannon + rocket launchers + light armor can be used to fight some positions. So the full team is M1-Abrams (Tank with big 120mm gun + very thick armor, requiring specialized weapons to kill), M2-Bradley (IFV with 30mm gun + rocket launchers, with very light-armor) carrying a squad of 6 infantry. The infantry could fight from inside the M2-Bradley, or outside the Bradley (mounted combat or dismounted combat), depending on the circumstances. The M2-Bradley's armor is very thin and made out of aluminum. I don't think anyone expects the M2-Bradley to actually take much fire. ------- The M2-Bradley means that infantry can "march" with the tank at full speeds (M1 and M2 are designed to have similar top-speeds and maneuverability). But in a contested area, the squad-of-6 will dismount and run around (scouting, running cover-to-cover), and support the M1 and M2 as appropriate (Ex: looking for mines, calling out enemy bazooka / missile troops, etc. etc.). Mounted-combat (ie: the squad-of-6 shooting out of the M2's portholes and relying upon the M2's armor as cover) is if the group is trying to get somewhere, either retreating... or advancing... to some other position. In any case, anti-tank weapons designed for thick uranium-steel alloy armor would absolutely destroy an M2's aluminum armor. No one actually expects the M2 to seriously survive any serious firefight except only against the lightest of light firearms.